Mode of non-operative management of thoracolumbar spine fracture continues to remain controversial with the most common modality hinging on bracing. TLSO is the device with a relative extension locked position, and many authors suggest they may have a role in the healing process, diminishing the load transferred via the anterior column, limiting segmental motion, and helping in pain control. However, several studies have shown prolonged use of brace may lead to skin breakdown, diminished pulmonary capacity, weakness of paraspinal musculature with no difference in pain and functional outcomes between patients treated with or without brace. To identify number of spinal braces used for spinal injury and cost implications (in a DGH), to identify the impact on length of stay, to ascertain patient compliance and quality of patient information provided for brace usage, reflect whether we need to change our practice on TLSO brace use.Introduction
Aims
All Polyethylene Tibial components in Total Knee Arthroplasty have been in use for some years, studies showing equivalent results to Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) with metal-backed Tibial components at 10 years have shown no significant difference between the two on radiostereometric analysis and revision rates[1]. Post operative patient outcome data using standard metal-backed Tibial components is widely reported in the literature. This study is looking at patient outcomes following All-polyethylene tibial component TKA. We hypothesize that using standard patient outcome measures, an improvement comparable with that expected for metal-backed tibial component TKA will be shown with All-polyethylene tibial component TKA. Between August 2006 and August 2008, 229 all-polyethylene tibial component TKA were implanted at the elective orthopedic unit. The choice of implant was entirely dependent on surgeon's preference. Of the 229 patient's, 225 details were available for review, 27 did not wish to take part in the study and 1 patient died a year following surgery of an unrelated illness. The remaining 197 patients agreed to take part in the study. The patient's were contacted either in person or over the telephone and asked to completed questionnaires for standard knee scoring. These included: the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the WOMAC Score and the SF-12 Score, both pre-operatively and post operatively.Objectives
Methods
Suture anchors have gained popularity in recent years, particularly owing to their ease of use for attaching soft tissues to bone and improved biomechanical properties. Three methods to reattach avulsed finger flexor tendons to the distal phalanx were biomechanically compared: a 1.8mm metal Mitek barbed suture anchor, twin 1.3mm PLA suture anchors (Microfix), or a pull-out suture over a button. The suture-anchor interface was tested by pulling the suture at 0, 45, 90° to the anchor's axis. The anchors were tested similarly in plastic foam bone substitute. Repairs of transected tendons in cadaveric fingers were loaded cyclically, then to failure. The results were subject to statistical analysis using Student t test (p< 0.001) and 1-way ANOVA (p<0.0001). The suture failed prematurely if pulled across the axis of the anchor. Conversely, fixation in bone substitute was stronger when pulling at an angle from the axis. Cyclic loads caused significantly more gap formation in-vitro with twin 1.3mm anchors than the other methods; this method was significantly weaker. The 1.8mm anchor gave similar performance to the pull-out suture and button, while the twin 1.3mm anchors were weaker and vulnerable to gap formation even with passive motion alone. A suture anchor embedded at between 45 and 90o to the direction of pull gave greater strength than if the pull was in-line. The absorbable 1.3 mm Microfix PLA anchors appeared to be a weak construct, even when twin 1.3 mm anchors were compared to a single metallic 1.8 mm Mitek anchor or the pull-out suture over button technique. All three methods are likely to be satisfactory for reattachment of finger flexor tendons if a low load or non-loading rehabilitation of the hand is planned; however the gap formation on cyclic loading with the Microfix is a concern even if patients are restricted to passive motion.
